Here is an interesting fact: scientists say (according to their studies) that it takes years upon years for the different layers of rocks to develop in the earth. Sounds logical. However, something that was not mentioned is that after studying the eruption of Mount St. Helens, they discovered all these layers of rock that supposedly took years to develop had actually occurred during the eruption, questioning there theories that the earth took millions of years to form. It presented the idea that perhaps the earth could have been created in a matter of days, as the Bible suggests, but again, this would mean that people would have to admit they were wrong.

One more thing to comment on your last statement. Did you ever consider that perhaps Christians DO care for atheists as they would for any other person? Perhaps cancer goes into “remission” because somebody cared enough for this person to pray for them.

You don’t have to prove that something doesn’t exist in order not to believe in it… because you can’t prove anything doesn’t exist. Can you prove werewolves don’t exist? I sure can’t. Yet I’m sure they don’t exist. The burden of proof is on the side that says something does exist.

You are using irrational reasoning in your statements. Werewolves? Come on, if you are going to make an example of something at least make it a valid example. Werewolves are known to be a creature of myth… not real. Nothing more than an urban legend. You don’t hear stories of werewolves doing whatever it is that werewolves do. However, you will hear an abundance of stories regarding God doing what he is known for doing. Stories of patients in hospital who are instantly cured of cancer, but, because of agnostic peoples, these stories are never heard of in the media.

Now, let’s say a creditable story about a werewolf comes up… I guarantee the media would be all over it. So you see, one never HAS to make a decision on whether or not werewolves exist because there has NEVER been a creditable story regarding one. It’s a basic process of reasoning, werewolves have never occurred outside of fictional stories, so why should you believe in them? I do hope you understand the point I am trying to make here. I know it may sound a bit repetitive, but that’s how I have written it.

How about I let your words speak for themselves as counter-examples to your accusations.

“ I can?t quite put my finger on it, but everytime I read his statements I would get the feeling that he?s putting someone down.”

“ Given the fact that this website is open to the public, not all people are going to know the definitions of words like ?ad hominem?. However, EVERYBODY would know the meaning of the words ?personal attack?”

“ Maybe I was wrong, maybe you can?t avoid some missunderstandings by simplifying. I doubt it though.” (This given in response to demonstrating that in fact what has been offered has been simple, and that simplifying further would be counter-productive)

“I was just suggesting the possible solution to the missunderstandings that seem to plague you throughout the sight. “ (“Plague” being used to describe the EMOTIONAL reactions to the existence of refutations, emotional reactions from TWO individuals alone…)

“Since it?s the statements and arguements that are getting confused, the one thing that you expected isn?t happening. People cant? take at face value what they don?t understand.”

“If you did, why didn?t you just say ?No, I won?t change the way I state things.? Because that would have been much SIMPLER than this:” (THIS is clearly not merely anti-intellectual, but suggests changing the very meaning of the conclusions.)

Jim,

I would point out again that your assumptions of omniscience or at least of the ability to read minds are per usual completely false and without basis. You and Kren have successfully mischaracterized the problems with your emotional reactions to the existence of refutations of your claims, as some sort of ego issue for me, despite the fact that you have no basis for these accusations.

You are correct that I do treat you with the very basic level of respect that is granted to all beings, which in part means that I do not assume that you mean something other than or counter to what you say. Why on earth would you complain about that respect being shown to you, except that you are not willing to show it to others?

As for the implications and statements about “intellectual leagues” I make no such assumptions, and have argued against such (profoundly arrogant) assumptions. Nothing I have said here or pointed out here is complex, lofty, or difficult in any fashion. At most you might be able to make a case that it is at the level of an incoming college freshman, but only given the state of government schools today.

I do not tell you what you are thinking, nor would I. Recall that I have left the pretenses of omniscience entirely up to you. I know I am not omniscient, nor able to read minds, nor have all of the answers. This is yet again a reaction to the existence of refutations, to the fact that reality has not changed to suit your claims. Ideas are not our children. Reacting emotionally to a different idea or to the existence of facts that demonstrate that a given belief is mistaken will not help clarify the idea or the new idea, nor will it move anyone forward. Such emotional reactions are simply anchors which prevent growth, prevent any positive movement at all.

“However, if you continue to try and help him understand this point (about simplifying his statements), I wish you luck.”

Okay so writing at an eighth grade level is not sufficiently simple? And yet meaning something other than what you directly communicate is simple and productive? Jim seriously these claims are at odds with one another and are merely an attempt to shift the attention from the emotional reactions which are the simple problem.

That a counter-example or counter-argument exists does not mean that the other view is set in stone. All beliefs are works in progress for the person who wants to learn and grow. That an argument is refuted, or that there exists evidence which disproves some deeply held belief does not prevent development or learning, in fact there is nothing more helpful than these, for they clearly demonstrate what beliefs to abandon or avoid. I really don’t have any idea where you get the notion that I am trying to stop or prevent learning and growth, or that the practice of critical thought (reason) is in opposition to any effort to develop a position, belief, or idea.

Pedro,

I apologize for my part in going off topic by responding to these absurd accusations. I feel that they deserve refutation since to allow them to stand is to encourage such uncivil and dishonest behavior, as well as to allow grossly false claims to stand as if they were true or had any basis. However at this point, if they simply crave the last word so be it. I will leave off the refutations of the personal attacks being made.

You are right. Mea culpa. I won’t do it again.

You’re scaring away new readers / potential commenters…

I do appreciate your comments, but I’ve noticed that they soon deviate from the original subject, and become unproductive. And when you get going, everyone else seems too scared to comment.

So, please, keep commenting, and reply to one another, but stick to the original subject. Or do I need to create a Way of the Mind Forum? I could…

[quote post="163"]So you see the problem is simple: your demands result in the argument I described, therefore no strawman exists. [/quote]

I made no demands, I merely stated an oppinnion. Yet you imply several times that a demand was made.

Antiintellectualist bias? I don’t remember having hostility towards you because you are an intellectual, or because you use intellectual ways to explain things. The only time I WAS hostile towards you was when there was a missunderstanding.

[quote post="163"]Just to make clear that in fact what you claim is a strawman is not at all a strawman, in your last mischaracterization of the argument and set of demands you made, you did not include the crucial demand that I use only words that “everyone” knows. [/quote]

I like how you state that I made a “Crucial demand” that you only use words that everyone knows. Actually what I did was give an example of that.

Above all TX, nevermind. You claim that I was making demands which weren’t made.
I can’t believe that stating something like:

[quote post="163"]TX- IMO, you could actually avoid some missunderstandings, by using some simpler terms and arguements. [/quote]

could actually be twisted into anti-intellectualism.

I see that even the slightest observation is twisted and used against me. Making it discouraging to post anything. I’ll remember this the next time I have an opinnion.

Give it up. TX wants everyone he has an argument with to rise to his level of discourse. Instead of asking questions to clarify what a person asks he steps directly to the step of assuming that their words have been carefully chosen and therefore stand for exactly what they mean. (My evidence? Nearly every response he made to posts I have written.) Maybe he should not have to do so, but for those of us still thinking about and trying to understand our own positions - not to mention write these comments in 5-10 minutes - it is the reality. My philosophy is not set in stone, nor do I have the time to create my arguments to the level that TX does on a regular basis.

What I have seen is the equivalent of a teacher that tells a student they are wrong… and says here’s why… without trying to ascertain if that is what the student really meant. As I have said before, I am clearly not in TX’s intellectual league. I am still trying to figure out what I mean half the time and, for me, the discourse is about discovering that. Being repeatedly told what I am thinking based on what I am saying does not help me to understand how to better describe what I am really thinking. That is why I will not continue in a discussion with him. Not because he is right, nor because I am so convinced I am right… but because I need to continue to develop my thoughts in a way that is helpful to me. TX’s comments are not.

However, if you continue to try and help him understand this point (about simplifying his statements), I wish you luck.

So you see the problem is simple: your demands result in the argument I described, therefore no strawman exists.

I noted earlier that we could switch entirely to symbolic logic for simplicity’s sake, is this what you are demanding?

Let’s stop dancing around the edges, why the anti-intellectual (using the word somewhat generously since the criticisms are not of anything lofty by any stretch of the imagination, but rather quite commonplace) bias?

It also would be simpler to state that the earth is flat, but neither of these would be true. You are AGAIN attributing mental states and intentions to me for which you have not merely no evidence, but direct counter-evidence. You are simply demnading that the very conclusions themselves be changed.

Again I would strongly recommend becoming familiar with X before claiming to be an expert in X. You are mistaking noting the necessary consequences of your argument for it being a strawman. You are also going to some lengths to avoid the explanations already provided, and in failing to account for them you are actually constructing a REAL strawman argument. The complexity you are claiming exists, only exists inasmuch as it exists because of the additions to make to the face value meaning of the words. You say that you cannot understand the face value, so you just tack on whatever you feel like I should have said in your mind so of course your desired conclusion is not the actual conclusion, therefore confusion…

Since your complaints here again are not about the style or the actual simplicity, but as your suggested example shows about changing the SUBSTANCE of the argument, this again lends itself as evidence that the real issue is merely THAT your positions are being refuted, not how.

[quote post="163"]I’ve not expected anything other than to take the statements and arguments at face value.[/quote]

Since it’s the statements and arguements that are getting confused, the one thing that you expected isn’t happening. People cant’ take at face value what they don’t understand.

[quote post="163"]As for the “solution” i pointed out that it is not possible therefore not a solution at all.[/quote]

If you did, why didn’t you just say “No, I won’t change the way I state things.” Because that would have been much SIMPLER than this:

[quote post="163"]As for dumbing down arguments and pretending that everyone I am talking to is an idiot, which is how I take your suggestion Kren, I prefer to grant those with whom I interact the benefit of the doubt that they are reasonably intelligent, honest, thinking individuals. That said, the arguments offered have been quite simple, though I take your comment about the terms (such as the latin terms for specific types of logical errors) at its meaing. I use them for the clarity of meaning, especially since when I have explained WHY they are fallacies in the instance then the complaint of complexity is then thrown out, leaving one to wonder if the real complaint is exactly what it appears to be, THAT the original argument is refuted at all..[/quote]

Which BTW is a strawman,

My position was that if you stated things more simply, you might not be missunderstood so much. NOT that you would need to (in your words) “pretending that everyone I am talking to is an idiot”.

When you look up “strawman” on wikipedia it gives this example:

Person A: I don’t think children should run into the busy streets.

Person B: I think that it would be foolish to lock up children all day with no fresh air.

A specific arguement combated by a (in your own words) “dishonest” refute against something other than the actual arguement (in this case OPINNION mind you). This is amplified by the fact that you swiched my point of view to an extreme one, which is exactly what person B’s tactic above is.

Classic TX, classic.

I’ve not expected anything other than to take the statements and arguments at face value. It simply does not get any simpler than that. As for the “solution” i pointed out that it is not possible therefore not a solution at all. How you, or Jim, takes honest, civil, sound refuations is entirely up to you; I cannot control your reactions nor would I if I could.

At some point I might stop arguing against the intellectual and honesty bias, but that should not be taken as any sort of giving over to those who oppose both..

I could simplify further, as I did when I put the argument into symbolic form, but unless one is already familiar with the nature of symbolic logic, then understanding is less likely not more. It seems to me that in fact I have kept it quite simple, and that the complaints are to some degree exactly that that is the problem. I used the very simple names of the specific fallacies so as to avoid any confusion, and I am accused of implying insult. I leave off the personal attacks and emotional nonsense which only serve to confuse and distract, and I am accused of negative emotional states, else negative intentions.

I strongly suspect, and contend that there is increasing evidence, that this is simply a no win situation where no matter the approach I take (as long as I maintain my honesty, and a strong connection with reality) the criticisms will remain the same. It still seems that the core “problem” is with the existence of the refutations rather than any stylistic problems, or any of the many varied comments about my person.

I would suggest that nothing that has been said by me has been overly complex or even subtle. That said, perhaps you could point to something you believe was too complex so that we can see where we part ways on the notion of complexity. (Though I am loath to walk this path on another’s blog)

My critisism assumed nothing, infact it was just an opinnion.
Maybe I was wrong, maybe you can’t avoid some missunderstandings by simplifying. I doubt it though.

I tried in vain to reason with you Jim and your responses were as likey as not to be claims that I was calling you stupid, else you would call me a satanist or whatnot. While I am far from perfect, I know that I have in fact shown a great deal of patience and self-control in responding to such provocation by you. Apparently this is deemed “unpalatable” leaving one to wonder what is palatable if not hoenst civil reasonable intellectual discussion. Which I also take to provid the clear answerfrom you to my last question concerning ceasing the personal attacks in favor of substantive discussion: “Hell NO!” (Or more likely: “Hell No, Ahole” given the vehemence with which you have pursued your personal attacks and the frequency of direct insults in your claims)

Kren, I would point out that assuming that every refutation is a personal insult is not the best way to take honest discussion either, yet this has been common in your own and in Jim’s posts. In fact Jim here even makes clear that if one disagrees with him on objective facts and reason, they are not worth bothering with, they are below contempt. As for words with which “not everyone” is familiar, perhaps we have different approaches but my own is that taught to me as a child: look up the words you do not know, or ask questions for clarification rather than attribute attitudes and intentions to me for which there is no evidence.

Still I would rather adopt the generous attitude that those with whom I interact are intelligent worthwhile individuals, than adopt the assumption that they are ignorant hate-filled idiots, even with the criticisms being along the lines of not assuming the latter…

Upon some reflection, it could be that these last few posts have been on topic, or close to it, since in essence we are discussing or at least dealing with a basic anti-intellecual bias.

I agree with you… although I also admit that I am probably just reacting to the feeling I get from TX as I read his words. As a teacher, I have found that presentation is often as important as the information I present, regardless of how right, correct, or important the information is. At least it is if I want my students to take the time to consider what I am saying. As a result, I have decided that it is no longer worth my time taking part in any discussion with TX. I will continue to read Pedro’s posts, but I find TX’s approach too unpalatable to bother reading his responses anymore.

Enjoy.

[quote post="163"]As for dumbing down arguments and pretending that everyone I am talking to is an idiot, which is how I take your suggestion Kren, [/quote]

That’s not exactly the best way to take my suggestion.
Given the fact that this website is open to the public, not all people are going to know the definitions of words like “ad hominem”. However, EVERYBODY would know the meaning of the words “personal attack”. That’s an example, and you are right, let’s stay on topic.

What you are mislabeling a “vibe” is simply the same old problem that Socrates (and countless others) dealt with through the ages: emotional reaction to non-emotional argument. I read your complaints as ONLY complaints THAT your claims were refuted, your argument criticized by objective and verifiable standards. I agree with you that I do not play the little games like pretending that X=-X or that a false claim is true because of some emotional appeal, but this fact does not support your assumptions about your own “knowledge” about my intentions, abilities, goals, etc.

Look to what you say “You do not know what is in my mind, so you have no basis to judge my statement that what I wrote is necessarily what I meant.” and “I read his statements I would get the feeling that he’s putting someone down.”

Both of these statements presume “knowledge” not in existence, but also appeal strictly to emotion not merely in the absence of evidence but in direct contradiction to the available evidence. No Jim I have no idea what is actually in your mind. I could assume as you have all too often done, that I know what is in the mind (and heart) of others and simply proclaim that they are in error in what they “really” mean, but instead I limit my refutations to the claims and arguments offered. By avoiding the ad hominems you find so appealing, I avoid commenting on the person at all. Which goes directly to Kren’s notion that I am insulting people by addressing arguments. Ideas are not our children. When an argument that we offer is proved invalid or unsound, we are not lessened by it, much less insulted by whomsoever has pointed out this objective verifiable fact. Yet, this is exactly what you must assume in order to come to the conclusion/accusation you have. No one is omniscient, nor incapable of error. Our choice is how to deal with the discovery of error. We can lash out at the individual or world when that error is shown to exist, or we can drop the false belief and re-examine the situation to (hopefully) come to a better conclusion, more well founded. Neither of these choices makes the person who might have brought the error to light better or worse, but the former does prevent us from learning and growing.

As for dumbing down arguments and pretending that everyone I am talking to is an idiot, which is how I take your suggestion Kren, I prefer to grant those with whom I interact the benefit of the doubt that they are reasonably intelligent, honest, thinking individuals. That said, the arguments offered have been quite simple, though I take your comment about the terms (such as the latin terms for specific types of logical errors) at its meaing. I use them for the clarity of meaning, especially since when I have explained WHY they are fallacies in the instance then the complaint of complexity is then thrown out, leaving one to wonder if the real complaint is exactly what it appears to be, THAT the original argument is refuted at all..

As for compassion, if your own use of personal attacks, dishonest tactics, and insults to those who hold views differing from your own is your idea of compassion Jim, I’ll not be following your suggestion there. As for myself, I stand proudly on my record both for the effectiveness of my approach teaching and for the reaction of students when all was said and done. I would however point out that it is not I that makes the assumption that I am somehow supposed to be teaching lessers here, rather I come here assuming a meeting of equals. (Again if you return to the other thread you’ll find that I was the one arguing AGAINST your statements about you being “stupid” (your word))

Is there any chance of returning to the topics and leaving behind these absurd attacks and distraction tactics?

TX- IMO, you could actually avoid some missunderstandings, by using some simpler terms and arguements.

You are right, there was no ad hominem in your comments to Jim. I take it back. I perhaps was more reacting to the tone and trying to be a little funny, and neither of these invalidate your comments.

Everyone-
I must say this site contains some of the most intelligent discussion about religion, society, and so on. It’s really a pleasure to interact with you.

Apparently you did not understand my last comment on being compassionate. That is not an attack, that is an observation based on your characterization of how I would assess a student’s work. Compassion is how you approach and deal with another person. If a student makes a mistake in a math problem, I do not ask them nor judge them on how they “feel” about their work and leave it at that. Compassion informs me as to how to deal with them about it, do I send them to the board and ridicule them? Do I ask them questions to help them see the answer? Do tell them they would be no good at math and just give up? Do I instruct them with a list of rules to follow given a similar situation?

Before you read these questions as a reflection on my teaching… they are not. However, they do demonstrate what I mean by saying that how I choose to help the student understand (and thus correct) their mistakes is what I meant by compassionate. I have no doubt you had good reports - many bad teachers (of which I AM NOT lumping you into) can also show good reports. You say that you had the hardest workloads, as if that is a badge of honor. Without knowing what your workload required I cannot offer judgement as to whether it was a good thing or not, but quantity is not a measure of quality.

I am conceding this argument (about schools in general) not because I feel you have made your point, but because I do not have the time to more clearly elucidate mine. You do not know what is in my mind, so you have no basis to judge my statement that what I wrote is necessarily what I meant.

Bring it on…

I understand the motivation for mischaracterizing what has happened and what I have done, I even understand why you would import blatant falsehoods, but that understanding does not cause me to pretend that those falsehoods are anything less than what they are. As for attacking, I have left that entirely up to you, look again to the thread on teaching and notice that you reacted emotionally to the very suggestion that government schools are less than ideal and necessary. So this notion that you are getting “defensive” is quite frankly complete nonsense. You are “getting defensive” in the same way that Bush is using “self-defense” in Iraq…

As for turning your arguments, again you are making an objectively false claim. I have not turned any of your claims or arguments. Unfortunately you are choosing to mischaracterize the REFUTATION of some claim or argument that you make as “turning” it.

BTW You ought not make assumptions about the experiences and lives of others in the absence of information, and no the attempted slight was not missed. As for your appeal to emotion, well it too is of course a fallacy, as well as the insult it was intended to be. Fortunately I always had the best reviews from students, though I also gave the hardest workloads and set the highest standards. In no small part this is because I am honest with my students, not playing emotional games, mischaracterizing what they said, and generally disrespecting them as individuals. You said you teach math, and you have offered compassion in place of reason and accuracy as the standard by which subjects (not individuals) ought to be judged. I wonder if you apply those same standards to your own subject of math such that if a student “feels” that basic arithematic is erroneos, then you are oblligated by your standards to simply grant them full credit despite the incorrect answers and the failure to understand the material… (This btw is just another way to demonstrate the invalidity of the argument you offer)

Rather than reacting emotionally to the idea that some position of yours could possibly be mistaken, that is to say that it is in conflict with reality, why not drop the nonsense, the personal attacks, and the blatant mischaracterizations and simply address the issues and subjects? Do you get so personal when someone divides your favorite number?

Refutations are not attacks. Ideas are not our children.

I know what TX is trying to do. And I am familiar with both the concepts of ad hominem and red herrings. And I have to concede that, as much as I thought I knew about logic, I am not on the same playing field as TX with regard to my understanding of making logical arguments… or following anothers. That, or the fact that I have a job that I choose to spend my time and energy on means that I am not able to spend the time necessary to really try to understand his arguments.

TX,

Maybe your comments to me do not constitute an ad hominem attack… but the vehemence in your argument makes it feel that way. I enjoy being a teacher… not for the “power” it gives me over others, but for those moments when you can actually see a student open her/his mind to new possibilities. When you attack, yes… attack (it does not matter to me if you use logic to do this or not), then I will of course become defensive. However, no longer. Several posts ago I decided it was no longer worth engaging in a discussion with you. I do not have the facility with words that you do, and regardless of how I phrase my argument to say one thing, you turn it to tell me that I have said the opposite. In my opinion, this is a flaw in my ability to write, not in what I have to say.

We will not agree on this issue… and at this point nothing you can say will change that. Let me just say, and you can take this as an ad hominem if you wish, but it is meant as constructive criticism. When you said you tutored logic, I hope you used a little more compassion when judging your students arguments…